Following an October preliminary finding, judge also approves design tweaks for Samsung.

On Friday the ITC filed a redacted version of a remedy suggested by ITC Administrative Law Judge Thomas Pender, in which he recommended a ban be enforced against Samsung products that were found to infringe upon four Apple patents. The judge also recommended that Samsung post a bond for 88 percent of the value of its infringing mobile phones, as well as 32.5 percent of the value of infringing media players, and 37.6 percent of the value of infringing tablets.

Still, in the same ruling, Pender also approved several workarounds suggested by Samsung that might permit the company to continue selling the implicated products (which include the Transform, Acclaim, Indulge and Intercept smartphones, according to Computerworld). These workarounds would sidestep infringing on Apple's four patents—which include one design patent and three technology patents.

However, the judge's initial ruling (and this remedy) must first be approved by a 6 person trade commission panel. Further, the USPTO has been revisiting the validity of Apple's patents. Earlier this month, the Patent and Trademark Office tentatively rejected a claim made by Apple for a touchscreen patent which factored into this very ITC ruling.

As Ars reported in October when Judge Pender made his preliminary ruling, this ITC trial is separate from the federal court trial Apple won in August with a $1.05 billion dollar verdict (which Samsung is in the process of appealing.) Apple is also asking for a ban on Samsung products in federal court, so if the trade commission panel rules against Judge Pender's recommendations, Apple may still have an avenue open to eliminating Samsung from selling a handful of its products in the US.

The patents upon which Judge Pender reportedly used a “Cheech and Chong” test to rule include: patent D618,678, a design patent with a diagram of the exterior of an iPhone; patent 7,479,949 for multi-touch screen navigation; patent RE41,922 describing how images are blended when more than one application runs at once; and patent 7,912,501 which claims an audio plug that can tell if a microphone or non-microphone related device has been plugged in. Two other patents that were brought forth in this case were not found to be violated by Samsung.

Ugh, RE41,922 seems wholly obvious from the basic principle of an alpha channel. Hard to believe that was novel as recently as 2002.

Yeah, that one is totally bizarre. I read the claims and don't understand how the fact that this is explaining fairly common knowledge was somehow missed by patent examiners (and for the "it looks obvious in retrospect, crowd", yes, we were doing this sort of thing long before there *were* windowed UIs).

It looks like a reissued patent, originally filed in 1993? Even then, there is nothing special here.

For anyone that works in software, this kind of patent should scare the bejesus out of you. You literally can't make decisions about how to composite different parts of your UI together without possibly (probably) infringing one of the thousands of patents like this that are out there.

The judge also recommended that Samsung post a bond for 88 percent of the value of its infringing mobile phones, as well as 32.5 percent of the value of infringing media players, and 37.6 percent of the value of infringing tablets

The judge also recommended that Samsung post a bond for 88 percent of the value of its infringing mobile phones, as well as 32.5 percent of the value of infringing media players, and 37.6 percent of the value of infringing tablets

Any idea (even rough idea) as to how much $$ that would be?

And is this the import ban that will do nothing? I don't know any of these phones, but it looks like the most recent one, Samsung Indulge, came out nearly two years ago in February 2011.

I would like to know how '501 differs from the way that every device with a 2.5mm or 3.5mm combination jack has worked since before the turn of the century. I'd say something bad about Apple, but it's really USPTO that should be blamed here. Their ineptitude has been responsible for more patent suits than willful infringement against valid patents has in recent years.

The bigger Apple v Samsungnews today was that the European Commission could fine Samsung up to 10% of annual revenues for FRAND abuse. 10% of $150B is roughly $15B. No wonder they dropped all those EU injunction lawsuits like a hot potato. Ouch!

At what point will people/companies with the power to do something about it decide that patents cost them and (from their perspective, less importantly) consumers more than those people/companies are making from their monopolies?

What has happened in the patents world this year would be funny, were it not so stupid, tragic, and costly. And it's consumers that bear that cost, regardless of where we choose to shop or which brands we buy.

At what point will people/companies with the power to do something about it decide that patents cost them and (from their perspective, less importantly) consumers more than those people/companies are making from their monopolies?

What has happened in the patents world this year would be funny, were it not so stupid, tragic, and costly. And it's consumers that bear that cost, regardless of where we choose to shop or which brands we buy.

Between the likes of Apple and Samsung, the cost of patents and patent litigation is a pittance compared to the revenues. Worldwide consumer demand for the latest and coolest gadgets is voracious, becoming many billions of dollars a year of disposed income. That's what's driving the patent wars.

I wish someone would hurry and make a decent unix alternative to Apple laptops so I can stop using Apple products. The existing *nix computers don't really work and I don't want a Windows machine. Maybe Google will make an Android for PC (not Chromebook). There just isn't a decent alternative to Mac OS X right now.

Sony, Acer, Asus, and IBM all use nice, standardized parts and behave extremely well with linux and UNIX. I've never run into any driver issues with any of them (I use Kubuntu, Gentoo, and Backtrack.)

Seriously I can only hope this patent litigation just becomes such a clusterfuck that it becomes such an economical nightmare that the parties have to give up. wheels roll. Round pipes carry shit out of my house, and fresh water in. Copper wires do a good job at transferring electricity. My TV just told me that vacuum therapy is the only erectile disfunction therapy approved by medicare part D!

If we're going to rid ourselves of patents then why not rid ourselves of copyright and trademarks?

None of these are perfect but ridding ourselves of them would create a market where original or unique work would have far less value, thus hampering innovation by reducing the financial incentive to create.

The bigger Apple v Samsungnews today was that the European Commission could fine Samsung up to 10% of annual revenues for FRAND abuse. 10% of $150B is roughly $15B. No wonder they dropped all those EU injunction lawsuits like a hot potato. Ouch!

If that happens it'll be bad news for standards. If you're the owner of a standards-essential patent and a company is refusing to negotiate (or bother following the process for resolving disagreements, which is there to be used before going to court) the EU is telling you that you have no negotiating leverage to make that company come to terms on a price. You can ask them nicely, and if they refuse use the appeal process and even sue them, but you'll probably end up spending more money getting them to finally pay, and (especially if you go through the courts) you're unlikely to get fair market rates.

So what will happen? Companies will decide that they don't want to participate in the standards process if it means devaluing their patents. The standards will be either watered down, or have so many ticking time bombs of non-FRAND patents hiding out there that it'll cost a fortune to implement the standard. Prices on stuff will go up, cause companies are going to pass the costs on to their customers, not eat into their profits.

So for those cheering the EU on in this: be careful what you wish for. It might just be worse than what the current situation.

The bigger Apple v Samsungnews today was that the European Commission could fine Samsung up to 10% of annual revenues for FRAND abuse. 10% of $150B is roughly $15B. No wonder they dropped all those EU injunction lawsuits like a hot potato. Ouch!

If that happens it'll be bad news for standards. If you're the owner of a standards-essential patent and a company is refusing to negotiate

You appear to be confused and did not bother to read the cite. Samsung refused to negotiate, then never bothered to sue for a court to determine a FRAND royalty, instead choosing to seek injunctions all over Europe. That's why they and Motorola are going to get spanked by the EC. And I disagree with you concerning the results—having clear distinctions and more transparency from regulators about what's discriminatory, fair, and reasonable royalties for SEPs can only be good for the industry, especially the little guys—for one thing the abusers who've been gouging them for decades behind closed doors will all be on notice.

Let copycats pay. Samsung and the entire South Korea have the same disease. They hardly innovate

Like the US did when it was growing, England before it, and pretty much anyone who became anyone.

People seem to have this quaint notion that their own country has a monopoly on the ability to create, and everyone else must be "stealing". While he probably meant it as a put-down to a short contemporary, Newton was absolutely right about "standing on the shoulders of giants" - and it goes for almost everything a modern person uses in their daily life.

Of course, nobody expected otherwise until about 300-400 years ago, when crown patents (monopolies) and then more formal monopoly protections came into being. But even 120 years ago, Gilbert and Sullivan were complaining about how the Americans were "stealing" their works because the US and England didn't recognise each others' copy-rights. Now the US has become "holier-than-thou" - at least when it suits, but is more than happy to shift the playing field to its own advantage wherever possible.

If we're going to rid ourselves of patents then why not rid ourselves of copyright and trademarks?

None of these are perfect but ridding ourselves of them would create a market where original or unique work would have far less value, thus hampering innovation by reducing the financial incentive to create.

The only thing you have mentioned here that has any sense economically is the trademark. Copyrights and patents are both monopoly systems, and every study of their economic benefits has shown zero. They are not good for the consumer. Nor do they encourage innovation at all.

Copyrights help a few extremely rich artists/authors, but the rest struggle on a pittance. Patents help to create and maintain monopolies. Where is the "good"?

Did Shakespeare need copyrights to encourage him to write plays? Did Dante need protection for his writing? Maybe we wouldn't have Mozart's music if he were unprotected - oh, wait.

Similarly with patents - inventors invent, regardless. Companies keep their trade secrets, and make profits by having first mover advantage. Patents are a rip-off of the consumer, benefiting the shareholder. In other words, the traditional "land-owner" advantage is maintained in the modern economy.

Let copycats pay. Samsung and the entire South Korea have the same disease. They hardly innovate

I'll bite.Ok, Apple shamelessly stole their design from Knight Ridder. Then they improved it. Watch the video of knight Ridder from well before the iPad/iPhone.

Lets say that some litigation mad monopolist decides that your product is "too competitive" and decides to "litigate instead of innovate" because its easier and they're scared of competition.Then some heckler sits in the sidelines and says "any competition to my beloved monopoly deserves to be smashed because they are from a particular region of the world (lets say America)" because "all Americans are copycats".

Now I don't like Samsung as a company, but I will not tolerate Litigation mad bahaviour against anyone because it destroys competition/innovation and only serves to harm society.

...so if I'm reading this correctly, Judge Pender is of the opinion that Samsung phones taste like dogshit? I guess that's a fair enough reason to ban them. Not sure why he's licking them though. Come to think of it, how does he even know what dogshit tastes like?

Two huge companies fighting. Samsung will find a way to sell their devices. This is just another part of their long legal battle with Apple. As long as little companies aren't bullied by big corporations I refuse to call anyone involved evil or victim. Samsung and Apple sit on billions of dollars.

The bigger Apple v Samsungnews today was that the European Commission could fine Samsung up to 10% of annual revenues for FRAND abuse. 10% of $150B is roughly $15B. No wonder they dropped all those EU injunction lawsuits like a hot potato. Ouch!

If that happens it'll be bad news for standards. If you're the owner of a standards-essential patent and a company is refusing to negotiate

You appear to be confused and did not bother to read the cite. Samsung refused to negotiate, then never bothered to sue for a court to determine a FRAND royalty, instead choosing to seek injunctions all over Europe. That's why they and Motorola are going to get spanked by the EC. And I disagree with you concerning the results—having clear distinctions and more transparency from regulators about what's discriminatory, fair, and reasonable royalties for SEPs can only be good for the industry, especially the little guys—for one thing the abusers who've been gouging them for decades behind closed doors will all be on notice.

This.

It is Samsung that refused to follow the process and is trying to destroy the long history of SEP negotiations.

If we're going to rid ourselves of patents then why not rid ourselves of copyright and trademarks?

None of these are perfect but ridding ourselves of them would create a market where original or unique work would have far less value, thus hampering innovation by reducing the financial incentive to create.

Your remark ignores the fact that being first in the market is a big advantage in itself and in the electronics and software industries, is sufficient to get a big selling advantage. Sure, the good stuff would all be copied in a year or two, but who wants to wait a year for last year's technology? You can sell a million copies of your new stuff in that first year -- in consumer goods. In industrial goods, it may not be enough time to get a decent return on investment. But 20 years is WAY too long for a patent term. For Gods' sakes! A whole generation of people grow up in the time it takes a patent to expire.

And as for copyrights, the terms are absurd. They're practically forever! Why should you get an eternal benefit just because you happen to have written something that people think is worth copying? Isn't having your name associated with your work enough? Let the right to charge for copying be limited to 5 years from date of first publication, but you have to be credited forever. The penalty for not crediting expired copyrighted work is to be forever recognized as jackass.

Trademarks are largely for consumer protection. It's a good thing to know that the product you are buying is actually made by its ostensible manufacturer, has the features you bought it for, is made to their standards and backed by their warranty.

Trademark has an exactly opposite purpose from patent and copyright. Patent and copyright prevent you from selling another person's work as your own. Trademark prevents you from selling your own work as somebody else's superior work.